When I am down facing overwhelming odds I like to take my biggest stack and just blow through the opponent in the hope that I might actually get lucky. This can sometimes take away valuable bonuses and punch holes in the opponent's defence that others might be able to use.

So is this a good idea or bad idea?

Looking at your rank mate, I would suggest not. Anyway, back to the kitchen....

If you're playing a non-team game, then kamikaze is a stupid move 100% of the time. It's almost always useless, especially in 1vs1, and if the circumstances are bad enough, may cause a accusation of hidden alliance.

However, a team atmosphere is a lot different. After your kamikaze, your friend can give you some of his reinforcements, therby still giving you a safe haven, while putting a block on your opponent. Of corse, this depends on the circumstances, and kamikaze may be stupid in this situation anyway. Just a thought.

Okay...so I think it is agreed that the strategy isn't a strategy at all and thus just a bad move....so here's to the reason I asked.

I was told by a high ranking person on CC that this is a good strategy. Having played RISK irl and seeing how the games are played here I disagreed, however, my rank here does reflect that I haven't had much luck on CC yet (btw I don't care what higher ranks think luck is at least 50% of CC and Risk) which is why I asked.

Thanks for the opinions. I think that maybe there's a few people offering advice that really shouldn't.

Noslen wrote:Okay...so I think it is agreed that the strategy isn't a strategy at all and thus just a bad move....so here's to the reason I asked.

I was told by a high ranking person on CC that this is a good strategy. Having played RISK irl and seeing how the games are played here I disagreed, however, my rank here does reflect that I haven't had much luck on CC yet (btw I don't care what higher ranks think luck is at least 50% of CC and Risk) which is why I asked.

Thanks for the opinions. I think that maybe there's a few people offering advice that really shouldn't.

If you think luck is 50% then it's peculiar how some people have gotten to such high ranks in the first place - if luck was 50% surely you'd have a higher score than cook?

Game is all about probability and odds - which is where the luck factors in. However - if you're playing escalating games with 8-players and you're trying to take Oceania when other people have deployed there - it's not luck that's causing you to lose, it's your strategy.

I very much agree that strategy is extremely important. Bad strategy can cause you to lose even if luck is on your side and good strategy save youo even when luck isn't on side.

That said because CC works with random numbers (after all it is the only way it can work) it is different from risk. You see it is possible to 'learn' how to throw dice in your favour, e.g. a flick of the wrist or the angle at which they are thrown can help get a favourable result. Therefore, strategy is a larger part of RL games. However, with CC because you can't 'learn' to throw the dice in a favourable way, you must rely on luck more than anything else. (odds don't come into it when you have a random number generator, you see with a random generator then it is possible to get any combinations and as such the odds are truly astronomical)

In short I agree that I am still using bad tactics on CC, because I have not yet found a way to adapt good risk techniques to these games.

Noslen wrote:I very much agree that strategy is extremely important. Bad strategy can cause you to lose even if luck is on your side and good strategy save youo even when luck isn't on side.

That said because CC works with random numbers (after all it is the only way it can work) it is different from risk. You see it is possible to 'learn' how to throw dice in your favour, e.g. a flick of the wrist or the angle at which they are thrown can help get a favourable result. Therefore, strategy is a larger part of RL games. However, with CC because you can't 'learn' to throw the dice in a favourable way, you must rely on luck more than anything else. (odds don't come into it when you have a random number generator, you see with a random generator then it is possible to get any combinations and as such the odds are truly astronomical)

In short I agree that I am still using bad tactics on CC, because I have not yet found a way to adapt good risk techniques to these games.

First of all - whatever you're talking about manipulating the dice is nothing more than cheating in RISK.

Concerning this site - it IS all about playing the odds... you're not making sense. First it depends on strategy - how much you preserve your army, what your locations are, whether or not (usually not) it's smart to attempt to secure any sort of bonus armies (referring to large, escalating games)... then it's odds. "What are the chances I can kill this guy with 12 armies vs 8 armies over 5 territories." Probably - not that great. Considering you have to drop an army each time you advance - that automatically makes 5 armies useless - the first army you leave on your initial territory - the next 4 you have to drop on each one. Thus you have 7 usable armies vs 8 defending armies. Now you have to figure out which are singles vs doubles. If they are 2,2,2,1,1 - then it's going to be pretty hard since there are so many doubles defending. Then you have to take into account - if I miss the kill - will it set someone else up as a gift? What are the odds they will have if they go for the kill right now. If it's a sequential game and another person is right after you with 30 armies also bordering this player's 8 armies - you should play your odds and take the gamble simply because if you sit around and don't take the shot - someone else will get the kill...

However, my point is that because the dice on CC relies on random number generation statistics and odds are not applicable. You can say that the odds of getting a six from one dice roll are one in six irl...however, a TRULY random number generator, like the one CC relies on doesn't stick to the odds. Rolling a 6 may still be a 1/6 chance but with each subsequent roll the odds are extended.

With the dice rolls there are around a 53% favour to the person with the larger army. However, with truly random numbers ANYTHING can happen and odds CANNOT be applied with any real measure of sucess.

So the point is that luck is a BIG part of the game.

(As for my point about 'learning' to throw dice....I didn't mean to imply that necessarily means cheating. The way a person throws a dice affects the result, for better or worse, and it is that which allows odds to be applied.)

Noslen wrote:I'm not saying that strategy ISN't important....I accept that it is.

However, my point is that because the dice on CC relies on random number generation statistics and odds are not applicable. You can say that the odds of getting a six from one dice roll are one in six irl...however, a TRULY random number generator, like the one CC relies on doesn't stick to the odds. Rolling a 6 may still be a 1/6 chance but with each subsequent roll the odds are extended.

With the dice rolls there are around a 53% favour to the person with the larger army. However, with truly random numbers ANYTHING can happen and odds CANNOT be applied with any real measure of sucess.

So the point is that luck is a BIG part of the game.

(As for my point about 'learning' to throw dice....I didn't mean to imply that necessarily means cheating. The way a person throws a dice affects the result, for better or worse, and it is that which allows odds to be applied.)

Incorrect - I don't know where you've taken math but it's faulty - that's what odds + probability are - the likelihood of something happening. ONLY because it's a random number generator (which don't actually exist fyi, there's no such thing as random numbers being generated in the world) can you use odds and probability to your advantage. It has nothing to do with something like a set of cards - where you can count a set sample size... it's irrelevant.

I also don't understand what you mean by 53% to the person with the larger army - that doesn't make sense. If you have 1000 vs 1001 = chances are the 1000 will win... even though it's the smaller army.

its a very good move. Lots of people don't like it but i guess that's war. I target bully's so could care less about being on anyones ignore list. Its really quite funny listening to all these experts on how to win during a game . I pick on anyone who picks on anyone else with name calling etc and i will even set myself up for several moves before i take them out just to prove they are not the great general they thought. I will work my way up because i have no fear of reprisals its a game and there are many different ways to win. And is the victim really a victim if he asked for it by taking my country , owning to much, or just being rude to everyone because they won't play the way they want someone too. I say if you can't handle war play tiddlywinks and take all your strategy there it might work there lol. So please add me to your ignore list if you can't handle losing because i hate whinners And one more thing about the odds. If i roll six six's in row does that mean any other number would be favoured next roll? -------- Absolutely not the six has the same chance on the next roll of coming up there is no arguement.

Noslen wrote:However, my point is that because the dice on CC relies on random number generation statistics and odds are not applicable. You can say that the odds of getting a six from one dice roll are one in six irl...however, a TRULY random number generator, like the one CC relies on doesn't stick to the odds. Rolling a 6 may still be a 1/6 chance but with each subsequent roll the odds are extended.

What the..? If the chances of rolling a 6 are the same then how exactly are odds and statistics "not applicable"? You're contradicting yourself and appear to have a very flawed understanding of probabilities and statistics.

Haven't really read through the topic. I will say this, though. The only time I will ever suicide my armies is in an escalating game where the sets are high and the guy after me is guaranteed to sweep the board anyway. I've been lucky twice doing that, and it won me the game both times. However, if I'm in, say, a flat rate game and I'm guaranteed to not win the game, then I will not suicide. First off, the person who wins the game should have to earn it. If he wants me gone, he'll have to take whatever armies I've got left. Second, it just ruins the game for everyone.

itsmedicineman wrote:its a very good move. Lots of people don't like it but i guess that's war. I target bully's so could care less about being on anyones ignore list. Its really quite funny listening to all these experts on how to win during a game . I pick on anyone who picks on anyone else with name calling etc and i will even set myself up for several moves before i take them out just to prove they are not the great general they thought. I will work my way up because i have no fear of reprisals its a game and there are many different ways to win. And is the victim really a victim if he asked for it by taking my country , owning to much, or just being rude to everyone because they won't play the way they want someone too. I say if you can't handle war play tiddlywinks and take all your strategy there it might work there lol. So please add me to your ignore list if you can't handle losing because i hate whinners And one more thing about the odds. If i roll six six's in row does that mean any other number would be favoured next roll? -------- Absolutely not the six has the same chance on the next roll of coming up there is no arguement.

Very well - you're ignored. If you're a puss that can't stand other people's conversations - there's no way I'd ever want to play a game with someone of your liking. I doubt you'll ever improve kid.

Fucking hilarious how everyone refers to this game as war btw - it's a strategy game not war.

It's not a good strategy because you are just weakening yourself. However, if you kamikaze on one player and there is distance between you and the other players they may welcome your random attacks on the first player and join in to further weaken him. This could give you a reprieve and allow you to regroup. It could also just open you up for easy pickings.

It is irritating to play with people whose attack strategies are...well...haphazard, but unless they are doing it throughout the game I think its fair. After all the point of strategy is that your opponent shouldn't predict it.

itsmedicineman wrote:its a very good move. Lots of people don't like it but i guess that's war. I target bully's so could care less about being on anyones ignore list. Its really quite funny listening to all these experts on how to win during a game . I pick on anyone who picks on anyone else with name calling etc and i will even set myself up for several moves before i take them out just to prove they are not the great general they thought. I will work my way up because i have no fear of reprisals its a game and there are many different ways to win. And is the victim really a victim if he asked for it by taking my country , owning to much, or just being rude to everyone because they won't play the way they want someone too. I say if you can't handle war play tiddlywinks and take all your strategy there it might work there lol. So please add me to your ignore list if you can't handle losing because i hate whinners And one more thing about the odds. If i roll six six's in row does that mean any other number would be favoured next roll? -------- Absolutely not the six has the same chance on the next roll of coming up there is no arguement.

Very well - you're ignored. If you're a puss that can't stand other people's conversations - there's no way I'd ever want to play a game with someone of your liking. I doubt you'll ever improve kid.

Fucking hilarious how everyone refers to this game as war btw - it's a strategy game not war.

I agree, a strategy game is something completely different from war. And as to attacking people just because they are "owning too much or being rude" is not strategy. Strategy is attacking the countries that strengthen your position or making moves that give you a better chance to win. Anything else is just plain stupid

gdeangel wrote:In mulitplayer, it's pretty much always got to have a balance. If you are the weakest player, and the other players are ganging on you then yes, it is probably best to suicide on someone, but of course you've got to announce it to give them an incentive to stop ganging on you.

If it's 1v1, and your really looking at a long shot, the odds on attack vs. defense are just slightly more favorable for attack BUT I have seen very seriously crap waves of attack dice, so you want to sort-of attack just enough to bait the other player to attack you, but hope the other guy catches the string of twelve consecutive 0-2 rolls thats out there in the dice file somewhere.

Personally I find that my attack dice are pretty much always crap but my defence dice can be pretty awesome sometimes. I don't know why this is, I'm guessing *and hoping* it's just a coincidence

I rarely have the opportunity, but if someone has been fairly consistently reducing me down, focusing mainly on me (not that this is a bad tactic or anything), and I'm sure that I'm not going to win, I like to dish out a little payback. I'm not worried about being ignored by anybody for something like a kamikaze attack. Seems like a bit of a childish maneuver anyhow.

A "Kamikaze" move doesn't necessarily mean it's a "suicidal" move, particularly if you're trying to stop someone from running away with the game. If a player has absolutely no resistance,they WILL win the game, but what kind of game would that be? This a conquering game, and those that want to win, have to earn the win, period. Even against Kamikaze's. If someone puts you on as a foe because of it, then it's someone who wants a cheap win and isn't a worthy adversary anyway. If a player takes his spoils and does it EVERY turn to you, without regards to his own well being, then perhaps he is trying to wipe you out in hopes of getting strong enough to win the game, or perhaps he just doesn't like you.

Those that complain about being hit hard during the game because they are running away with it are hoping no one notices and get pissed off when it happens, again, they're hoping for a cheap win.

Those that are NOT WILLING to sacrifice in attacking the big dawg in the game, are cowards and hardly worthy as well. Going kamikaze, no matter at any point in the game, may also actually make the others in the game see that it is necessary to do so for their own survival.

"Suicidal" should NOT even be in the ratings. It was put in there by ego maniacs with 15,000 games under their belt who think they are bitchin' and their shit doesn't stink. It is a perfectly legitimate move. Don't want it to happen to you? Then defend yourself. Can't hold them off, then you weren't meant to win.

Basically, a kamikaze move as it's described here generally results in a third player winning the game. I guess that's okay if you want the higher ranked player winning so you don't lose as many points (not a fan of this, by the way), but if the situation's truly hopeless and you attack one player like crazy anyway, it doesn't do you any good.

Now, there's a difference between a kamikaze attack and making a last-ditch shot at winning/ running the table. With the former, the chance of success is effectively zero. With the latter, usually the player's estimated their chances and have at least a believable shot at winning the game (though what is considered believable varies from player to player).

I don't know where you'd draw the line - trying anything at 0% chance of success (for example, you have 8 troops left, and you have to conquer 10 terts to win) is just poor form. Personally, I wouldn't attempt something like this with less than a 20% chance of success, but if it it's reasonable, I'd take the shot.

Say it's an Escalating game, and if I can kill an opponent I either get points (Terminator) or enough cards to cash again and replace the troops I lost, I might go for it. Say I had a stack of 10, and I had to kill 20 troops on one tert - unlikely, but it's still possible. It depends on the situation in the game, whether it's make the kill or be eliminated. If I don't try, I lose, and if I try and fail, I still lose, but if by some stretch of great luck, I make the kill and either stay alive, get some points, or eventually win, I'd pull the trigger there.

Now, if you're attacking every turn just to attack, and in doing so giving the game away to a third player, I don't see the benefit for you personally (unless, again, you'd rather lose less points to a colonel than to a private first class).

Kamikaze is good and bad at the same time. I know I'm a newbie. But everyone has a point sometimes. Anyway, it is good if you are risking luck. If you are on the corner of a "out of a game" knockout and you KNOW you are going to lose, kamikaze can help inflict a good amount of damage before death. It's bad to do early and mid game because you don't know if you'll lose. I even done some personal kamikazes myself, but it didn't really help and it net me the loss. So it balances in 50 / 50 on the scale currently. Unless the owner of this site implants a new kamikaze setting.

Like I said in the "fighting cook" thread - if you are strong enough to seriously damage another player's chance of winning, then you are strong enough to win the game yourself.

I mean, what are we talking about here? You have a stack of 10 and are getting 3 armies per turn while your opponent has half the map and is getting like +15 a turn? You're right - you are screwed. But also your "stack" is barely going to dent them. So it doesn't really matter what you do.

On the other hand, if you have like 20 some armies with +3 a turn while both of your opponents are"only" getting +9 or so, then you're misjudging your place in the game. You could definitely use those to try to swing the game back in your favor, especially if they are trying to fight each other (or someone else) as well, because they are not going to want to weaken themselves taking you out if it's going to allow someone else to take them out.

If you really are strong enough to seriously hurt your opponent, then he most likely knows that and does NOT want it to happen. That's where the text box comes in (hint: under the map) - talk to him. Tell him that is likely going to be your course of action unless a truce can be agreed on. It puts the ball in his court - if he declines, then he has no reason to get upset if you do hurt him enough to cause him to eventually lose... and if he agrees, then you get a "second chance" so to speak, to build up and get even stronger so that you can get back into the game.

Like, for example, let's say it's a 3-player game with the above scenario: you are down to a few territories left and are only getting +3. The other two players both have bonuses and are getting +9.

Both of them need to use all 9 of their troops against EACH OTHER. They don't have enough to split between you and the other guy. If he uses 4/5 against your 3, then that means he's only able to use 4/5 against the other guy's 9. He doesn't want to do that, because while he'll likely eventually beat you, he's going to lose a lot of ground to the other guy in return. Instead, ask for a truce. Tell him to go ahead and use his 9 against the other guy's 9, then you keep stacking up and can eventually fight him yourself.

Or, let's say you are at +3, someone else is +9, another is +15. You can try to ally against the guy who is +15. That guy doesn't have quite enough troops to fight you both at the same time. It's essentially 15 vs 12, which is fairly even. You guys work together until you can knock him down to around the same strength as the second place player and you will find that you've moved up quite a bit. So now it's maybe +5 vs +9 vs +10... you're back in the game. Etc.